Effect of Best Practice Advisories on Sedation Protocol Compliance and Drug-Related Hazardous Condition Mitigation Among Critical Care Patients

Resident-Driven Clinical Decision Support Governance to Improve the Utility of Clinical Decision Support

OBJECTIVES

 This resident-driven quality improvement project aimed to better understand the known problem of a misaligned clinical decision support (CDS) strategy and improve CDS utilization.

METHODS

 An internal survey was sent to all internal medicine (IM) residents to identify the most bothersome CDS alerts. Survey results were supported by electronic health record (EHR) data of CDS firing rates and response rates which were collected for each of the three most bothersome CDS tools. Changes to firing criteria were created to increase utilization and to better align with the five rights of CDS. Findings and proposed changes were presented to our institution's CDS Governance Committee. Changes were approved and implemented. Postintervention firing rates were then collected for 1 week.

RESULTS

 Twenty nine residents participated in the CDS survey and identified sepsis alerts, lipid profile reminders, and telemetry renewals to be the most bothersome alerts. EHR data showed action rates for these CDS as low as 1%. We implemented changes to focus emergency department (ED)-based sepsis alerts to the right provider, better address the right information for lipid profile reminders, and select the right time in workflow for telemetry renewals to be most effective. With these changes we successfully eliminated ED-based sepsis CDS reminders for IM providers, saw a 97% reduction in firing rates for the lipid profile CDS, and noted a 55% reduction in firing rates for telemetry CDS.

CONCLUSION

 This project highlighted that alert improvements spearheaded by resident teams can be completed successfully using robust CDS governance strategies and can effectively optimize interruptive alerts.

Remimazolam tosylate's long-term sedative properties in ICU patients on mechanical ventilation: effectiveness and safety

OBJECTIVE

This study compared remimazolam tosylate with propofol or midazolam to assess its safety and effectiveness for long-term sedation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

Adult patients in the ICU receiving sedation and mechanical ventilation for longer than 24 h were included in this single-center, prospective, observational study. Depending on the sedatives they were given, they were split into two groups (midazolam or propofol group; remimazolam group). ICU mortality was the main result. Laboratory tests, adverse events, and the length of ICU stay were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were involved (46 received propofol or midazolam versus 60 received remimazolam). Age (P = 0.182), gender (P = 0.325), and the amount of time between being admitted to the ICU and receiving medication infusion (P = 0.770) did not substantially differ between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in ICU mortality between the two groups. The remimazolam group showed less variability in heart rate (P = 0.0021), pH (P = 0.048), bicarbonate (P = 0.0133), lactate (P = 0.0002), arterial blood gas analyses, liver, and kidney function. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale scores, length of ICU stay, and occurrence of adverse events did not exhibit significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam tosylate did not increase the total inpatient cost, the incidence of adverse events, and ICU mortality in patients with mechanical ventilation. These findings suggest that remimazolam may represent a promising alternative for sedation in the ICU setting.

Meaningful time-related aspects of alerts in Clinical Decision Support Systems. A unified framework

Alerts are a common functionality of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). Although they have proven to be useful in clinical practice, the alert burden can lead to alert fatigue and significantly reduce their usability and acceptance. Based on a literature review, we propose a unified framework consisting of a set of meaningful timestamps that allows the use of state-of-the-art measures for alert burden, such as alert dwell time, alert think time, and response time. In addition, it can be used to investigate other measures that could be relevant as regards dealing with this problem. Furthermore, we provide a case study concerning three different types of alerts to which the framework was successfully applied. We consider that our framework can easily be adapted to other CDSSs and that it could be useful for dealing with alert burden measurement thus contributing to its appropriate management.

Pilot Findings of Pharmacogenomics in Perioperative Care: Initial Results From the First Phase of the ImPreSS Trial

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenomics, which offers a potential means by which to inform prescribing and avoid adverse drug reactions, has gained increasing consideration in other medical settings but has not been broadly evaluated during perioperative care.

METHODS

The Implementation of Pharmacogenomic Decision Support in Surgery (ImPreSS) Trial is a prospective, single-center study consisting of a prerandomization pilot and a subsequent randomized phase. We describe findings from the pilot period. Patients planning elective surgeries were genotyped with pharmacogenomic results, and decision support was made available to anesthesia providers in advance of surgery. Pharmacogenomic result access and prescribing records were analyzed. Surveys (Likert-scale) were administered to providers to understand utilization barriers.

RESULTS

Of eligible anesthesiology providers, 166 of 211 (79%) enrolled. A total of 71 patients underwent genotyping and surgery (median, 62 years; 55% female; average American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, 2.6; 58 inpatients and 13 ambulatories). No patients required postoperative intensive care or pain consultations. At least 1 provider accessed pharmacogenomic results before or during 41 of 71 surgeries (58%). Faculty were more likely to access results (78%) compared to house staff (41%; P = .003) and midlevel practitioners (15%) ( P < .0001). Notably, all administered intraoperative medications had favorable genomic results with the exception of succinylcholine administration to 1 patient with genomically increased risk for prolonged apnea (without adverse outcome). Considering composite prescribing in preoperative, recovery, throughout hospitalization, and at discharge, each patient was prescribed a median of 35 (range 15-83) total medications, 7 (range 1-22) of which had annotated pharmacogenomic results. Of 2371 prescribing events, 5 genomically high-risk medications were administered (all tramadol or omeprazole; with 2 of 5 pharmacogenomic results accessed), and 100 genomically cautionary mediations were administered (hydralazine, oxycodone, and pantoprazole; 61% rate of accessing results). Providers reported that although results were generally easy to access and understand, the most common reason for not considering results was because remembering to access pharmacogenomic information was not yet a part of their normal clinical workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot data for result access rates suggest interest in pharmacogenomics by anesthesia providers, even if opportunities to alter prescribing in response to high-risk genotypes were infrequent. This pilot phase has also uncovered unique considerations for implementing pharmacogenomic information in the perioperative care setting, and new strategies including adding the involvement of surgery teams, targeting patients likely to need intensive care and dedicated pain care, and embedding pharmacists within rounding models will be incorporated in the follow-on randomized phase to increase engagement and likelihood of affecting prescribing decisions and clinical outcomes.